Puchaz spin count 23 and counting

W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\). wrote:

"In the initial stages of spin training, continuous spins of two or three
turns are mainly to allow the trainee time to study the characteristics of
the spin and give confidence that the recovery action from a stabilised spin
is effective. There is no requirement for these spins to be noticeably
close to the ground, so their training value is not compromised if they are
completed very high. The majority of spin training will then involve brief
spins of about a half a turn with the primary aim of recognising the
circumstances in which the spin can occur, correctly identifying the
spin/spiral dive, and practising the correct recovery action.

Spins for license training used to be required in the
US also. Perhaps not a bad way to show what NOT to do.
I don't have a problem with this too much...


"As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce brief spins where
the ground is noticeably close.

EEEEEEeeeeek!!! Not with ME on board. 33% of dual fatalities in the
US are failed emergency "procedures." A LOT of those are caused by the
ground. I'm not afraid of heights, I'm afraid of LACK of heights...

This is to ensure that the trainee will
take the correct recovery action even when the nose is down and the ground
approaching. A very experienced instructor flying a docile two seater in
ideal conditions may be prepared to initiate a brief spin from 800'. A
less docile two seater with a less experienced instructor, or less than
ideal conditions, should raise the minimum height considerably."

Egads! Below 1500 AGL for recovery even, in the US one would
need an aerobatic waiver. And I doubt it would allow
passengers.

You guys have some real solid brass ones. Couldn't you just
start at a higher altitude and use a cloud deck below you?
Quite a thrill spinning through a cloud deck (so I'm told
There ARE clouds over the pond right? :PPP

This is a huge difference between US and UK glider training...
very interesting...

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:40288f58$1@darkstar...
W.J. \(Bill\) Dean \(U.K.\). wrote:

"As this training progresses, it is necessary to introduce brief
spins where
the ground is noticeably close.

This reminds me of the old FAA requirement to practice twin engine-out
procedures (Vmc demonstration) at low altitudes during multiengine
training, the reasoning being the low performance of the existing
twin-engined trainers required a low altitude in order to have any
single-engine climb available to show. Apparently, this killed a LOT
of pilots due to stall spins at low altitude in light twins - not fun
with an engine caged! - until the FAA decided that the cure was a lot
worse than the disease.

Sure, with a really experienced instructor, and a really trusted
glider, a low altitude spin could be "safely" demonstrated. But I'm
not totally convinced that it is necessary for the lesson to sink in.
OTOH, in the context of spin training, it is absolutely vital to beat
into the students head the nasty impact (pun intended) of a surprise
low altitude departure.

You guys (the Brits) can possibly get away with it, due to much more
standardization (a good thing). I would hate to see it adopted in the
US, where standardization is a one of dem big woids we aint learnd in
skool.

How about our French, German, Dutch, etc. colleagues - How low do you
teach (or demonstrate; not necessarily the same thing) low altitude
spin entries?

BTW, don't forget 1812 (we still need to burn 10 Downling Street) and
Suez (Now there was a virtuous war!). Just joking, we love you man!

Kirk

In article 40288f58$1@darkstar, (Mark James Boyd)
writes:

You guys have some real solid brass ones. Couldn't you just
start at a higher altitude and use a cloud deck below you?
Quite a thrill spinning through a cloud deck (so I'm told
There ARE clouds over the pond right? :PPP

Spinning through cloud!!!

Does this meet with the approval of your Chief Flying Instructor - or the rest
of the aviation world pottering about below the same cloud you are spinning
down through?

Barney
UK

Barney
UK

In article ,
BAToulson wrote:
In article 40288f58$1@darkstar, (Mark James Boyd)
writes:

You guys have some real solid brass ones. Couldn't you just
start at a higher altitude and use a cloud deck below you?
Quite a thrill spinning through a cloud deck (so I'm told
There ARE clouds over the pond right? :PPP

Spinning through cloud!!!

Does this meet with the approval of your Chief Flying Instructor - or the rest
of the aviation world pottering about below the same cloud you are spinning
down through?

This was given in the context "better to intiate spins at 800 feet
over a cloud deck than over the ground, and would give the
same effect (canopy full of cloud, must fight urge to
pull back on stick)"

Aerobatics with less than 3 miles vis is prohibited
in the US without waiver, as far as I know...


Barney
UK

Barney
UK

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:402bf598$1@darkstar...

Aerobatics with less than 3 miles vis is prohibited
in the US without waiver, as far as I know...

And in the US you would have to remain at least 1000' above the cloud
(assuming class E or class G 1200' agl.) but the idea still might have
merit given the theory that clouds are usually soft and empty but the ground
is invariably hard.


Vaughn

In article ,
Vaughn wrote:

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:402bf598$1@darkstar...

Aerobatics with less than 3 miles vis is prohibited
in the US without waiver, as far as I know...

And in the US you would have to remain at least 1000' above the cloud
(assuming class E or class G 1200' agl.)

actually, there are some fairly large areas of "G" airspace
which go up to 10,000+ here in CA and NV. Spin down to cloud level,
then level descent through the deck. I've never done it myself,
but I'd bet money Carl Herold has...

Not a whole lot of traffic in these areas either, so that's
a very minor issue (big sky, little bullet theory).

Stupid? Maybe (for some folks). Legal, sure.

but the idea still might have
merit given the theory that clouds are usually soft and empty but the ground
is invariably hard.

The guy who told me he spun through a cloud intentionally in his
Pitts said it was psycholigically REALLY hard to hold the spin
through the 500 foot layer through to break out...

In article 402c2ade$1@darkstar, Mark James Boyd wrote:
In article ,
Vaughn wrote:

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:402bf598$1@darkstar...

Aerobatics with less than 3 miles vis is prohibited
in the US without waiver, as far as I know...

And in the US you would have to remain at least 1000' above the cloud
(assuming class E or class G 1200' agl.)

actually, there are some fairly large areas of "G" airspace
which go up to 10,000+ here in CA and NV. Spin down to cloud level,

Clear retraction of this idea to follow...

then level descent through the deck. I've never done it myself,
but I'd bet money Carl Herold has...

Not a whole lot of traffic in these areas either, so that's
a very minor issue (big sky, little bullet theory).

Stupid? Maybe (for some folks). Legal, sure.

Instant retraction. I just checked part 91. Still need
1000 ft above for VFR in G during day. And no IFR
aerobatics are permitted (that seems fairly non-controversial).

So spinning down to cloud level when above 1200 ft should be
illegal without a waiver (although if done certain ways,
I could see it being safe).

On the other hand, spinning down to cloud level below 1200 AGL
could be legal (although I'd have a hard time ever considering
this to be safe).

but the idea still might have
merit given the theory that clouds are usually soft and empty but the ground
is invariably hard.

The guy who told me he spun through a cloud intentionally in his
Pitts said it was psycholigically REALLY hard to hold the spin
through the 500 foot layer through to break out...

Chinese wise man say: check reg first, then post to newsgroup

"Mark James Boyd" wrote in message
news:402c3016$1@darkstar...
In article 402c2ade$1@darkstar,

Instant retraction. I just checked part 91. Still need
1000 ft above for VFR in G during day. And no IFR
aerobatics are permitted (that seems fairly non-controversial).

So spinning down to cloud level when above 1200 ft should be
illegal without a waiver (although if done certain ways,
I could see it being safe).

Chinese wise man say: check reg first, then post to newsgroup

I would be reading this with a superior grin if I hadn't come so close
to making the same error myself! These winter threads can be a good
excercise.

Vaughn